13 Mormon Doctrines not taught by
Christ's early Church nor anyone else before Joseph Smith invented them in the
1830's

The Mormon Church often contends that either the Catholic
Church or the Mormon Church is the True Church of Christ, i.e., the Bride of
Christ (http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/bride.html). It discounts the Protestant theologies (and rightly so), because of
their recent date of origins in the Renaissance era at the earliest, and the
last couple years at the latest, and their "multitude of gospels/statements of
Faith" embraced by the 1000s of Protestant organizations. Because of the
recent origins of their beliefs, Mormons conclude that there is a virtual
impossibility that "distinctive" Protestant ideas were taught by the Apostles to
Christ's early Church. An analogy is the "light bulb," it was invented in the
19th century by Thomas Edison. To claim the Apostles taught "Protestant ideas"
is akin to claiming the Apostles "wrote scripture by electric lights."
= => It's
impossible for both are recent inventions of the last few hundred
years. How can something modern, be ancient? The following site details the
authors and dates of origin of the protestant theologies.

Yet, this analogy and logic can also be used
to investigate the veracity of Mormon theology. Is Mormon Theology
"True or Apostolic?" Is it what the Apostles taught Christ's early Church? If
Mormon theology is *not* what the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, then
logic would tell us that it, (and the Protestant theologies), are mere
modern inventions on the Gospel of Christ, and therefore should
be rejected as such. And likewise, if there was no "great apostasy" in the
early Church as Mormons have been taught, then again Mormon theology must be
false.

James E. Talmage wrote "The Great Apostasy" and
published by the Mormon Church in 1909. On page 34 he reiterates one of the
Great LDS Articles of Faith:

"We [the Church of today] believe in the
same organization that existed in the Primitive Church."

And Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:

"We are not an institution which has broken away from the
Roman Catholic [Church] or any other church. We are not part of a reformation.
We declare that this is a Restoration. The teachings and organization of the
Church are as they were anciently."

If this is so, then the Primitive Church must have also
taught Mormon doctrines and theology if it was the same organization. Yet one
must ask: "If Mormon theology is what the Apostles really taught,
why can't Mormon theologians find just "one person" who believed any of the
following Mormon ideas before Joseph Smith taught them 1800+ years
later?"

If the Apostles really taught these Mormon ideas, why is
history absolutely silent on these ideas, either before or after the
alleged great apostasy until the 19th century?

The Following list of 13 Mormon doctrines
begs the question:

"Why were none of these ideas taught by anyone, to
anyone, before Joseph Smith in the 1830's? How did these ideas get into the Holy
Bible if the Apostles did not teach them? Was Joseph Smith the first person in
the history of the world to teach these ideas? And if so, how can they be
'Biblical' if the Apostles did not teach them? "

The Holy Bible commands us to:

“Test
everything. Hold on to the good.” 1 Thessalonians
5:21-22

Can
Mormon theology be tested for Apostolicity? Can Protestant theology? Can
Catholic theology? Actually all 3 can for we can we read the writings of
the "Students of the Apostles" and the great Christians of history to test which
theology is Apostolic and which is not? The following link gives this "Test for
Apostolicity" for Catholic Theology. It tells us what the Apostles taught
Christ's early Church. And as we discover, everything they believed, the
Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church still believes.

The Protestant theologies fail this test for Apostolicity
because not only do most of them not teach as the Apostles taught, but most
modern Protestants don't even embrace the teachings of their own Renaissance
reformers. And the few that do find themselves in a situation where their own
reformers face the same dilemma, they can't find a single soul who taught their
novel ideas before the Renaissance era. That is why Protestantism is so easy to
discount.

Can this same "Test" be applied to Mormon theology? Even
if one clings to the "great apostasy" theory, (although a specific date of
said apostasy has never been clearly articulated), shouldn't we find at least
*some* evidence for Mormon theology in the early Church? Shouldn't we find at
least "one or two" Christians who "also" taught Mormon ideas either before
or after the "great apostasy"? Shouldn't we at least find the "Students of
the Apostles" teaching Mormon doctrines? Is there any support for these
ideas in historic Christianity before Joseph Smith preached them in the
1830s? If not, why would a logical person conclude that Mormon theology is
the teachings of the Apostles? Again, this is the same Quantum Leap
in logic (of Protestant theology) that Protestants face when they discover,
or try and convince themselves that:

a. The Apostles taught Mormon
theology to their "students" in the early Church.

b. Yet somehow not a single
soul taught these ideas *again*, to include the "Students of the
Apostles", until the latter half of the second millennium. In fact
modern Protestantism doesn't even embrace the faith of their own reformers so
how could the Apostles have taught these ideas 2000 years earlier?

Most Mormons will agree that the link between distinctly
"Protestant ideas" and the Apostles teachings is nonexistent. Yet the
Mormon Church is asking Mormons to do this very thing! To somehow believe
that the Apostles taught Mormon ideas, yet not a single soul taught them
*again*, either before or after the so called great apostasy, until Joseph Smith
did in the 19th century. Logic would tell us this is not a valid argument
if there is zero evidence to support it and the premise is
flawed. Mormons theologians are telling Mormons to essentially believe, that the
Apostles"taught Mormon theology by electric lights." This is impossible
for BOTH ideas "came to light" in the 19th century!I
would challenge my Mormon friends to test their theology for Apostolicity as the
Holy Bible commands.

“Test everything.
Hold on to the good.” 1 Thessalonians
5:21-22

The
entire writings of your early Church Fathers, some the "Students of the
Apostles", (both before and after the alleged "great apostasy") are located at
the the following links:

I
ask you my LDS friend, can Mormonism find just one person who taught the
following Mormon ideas before Joseph Smith invented them in the 19th
century? Just one person. And if not, why would an educated and
logical person conclude that these ideas were somehow the teachings of the
Apostles, if the first we hear of them is from a man in the 19th century? I just
want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's infant Church, no matter where
it lead me and no matter what it costs me. I would pray that you desire the
same.

13
Questions for LDS Theologians, Bishops and Layperson's: Did anyone in Christ's
infant Church teach:

1.
That men can become as God, or like God or any derivative of this idea, or the
concept of "eternal progression?"
Which Apostle or student of the Apostles taught this idea?

2.
That "God the Father" was at one time a mere man on another planet, or that he
had a "Heavenly Wife" of from which he created "Spirit Children". Who taught these ideas
even before the so called "great apostasy?"

3.
That there is more than one God ("plurality of
gods") or the idea of the Godhead as meaning 3
distinct gods? Who taught these ideas before Joseph Smith in
the 19th century?

4.
Who in Christ's infant Church taught that no one is dammed forever, or that
there are 3 Kingdoms/Levels in
Heaven?Did the Students of the Apostles teach this,
if so who?

5.
Who in Christ's infant Church taught that men and angels are interlinked or that
men may become angles? Mormons believe that Moroni (from the book of Mormon)
became an angel and that the Arch-angle Michael became "Adam" of the book of
Genesis. Like the rest of theses ideas, this was unheard of before Joseph
Smith. Why would one attribute it to the teachings of the Apostles then?

6.
Where is "Spirit Children" taught in
the early Church? Or is the first we hear of it from Joseph Smith in
the 19th century?

7.
Who in the early Church taught the concept (in any manner) that Jesus and Satan were brothers or half brothers or
any relationship of that sort? The Apostles taught that Christ was the One God
and that Satan was a fallen angel. Who taught the former before Joseph Smith?

8.
What Christian practiced or taught polygamy in Christ's infant Church? What
Christian did this in the first 1800+ years of Christianity before Joseph Smith?

9.
Who in Christ's early Church taught or practiced "Sealing" of marriages for
eternity? (Celestial
marriages)

10.
The Holy Bible in 1 Cor 15 does speak of "Baptisms
for the Dead," but not in the context of a "Christian
practice," we read some unnamed: "they" practiced it. If it were
a Christian practice, should we not have at least "somebody" practice this
either before or after the alleged "great
apostasy" again? Should it not be included in the early
documents on Baptism? But history is silent on this most
fundamental Mormon doctrine, until Joseph Smith in the 19th
century. Why? Because it was not a Christian practice.

11.
What early Christian in Christ's infant Church taught or
advocated abstaining from alcohol or caffeine. Or did this idea
first surface in the latter half of the second millennium? (Christ's first
miracle was making wine out of water, why would he forbid
it?)

12.
And why do we read nothing in the writings of the early Church of Mormon Temple
ceremonies?Surly, these sacred ceremonies would have
been practiced by "somebody" in the early Church. Yet we hear absolutely nothing
about them until the 19th century. Why?

Why
do all we read of, is the Apostles and their students practicing the same faith
practiced in the Catholic Faith of today? The reason is because Christ's early
Church was Catholic in its theology. Not Protestant or Mormon or
Jehovah's Witness, but Catholic in its beliefs.

13.
James Talmage in his 1909 book makes the excellent distinction between the:

a.
Apostasy FROM the Church and

b.
Apostasy OF the Church.

There
is a difference. Men will always sin and some become Apostate. But did the
Church itself become Apostate? Christ's Holy Bible calls this Church:

The
Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth"

1
Tim 3:15

Mr
Talmage describes very well point #1. Apostasy FROM the Church as described in
Holy Writ and the writing of our Church Fathers. Yet apostasy of this kind is to
be expect of any religion and even happens today in all religions. There are
apostate Catholics, Protestants and even apostate Latter Day Saints. So in
essence, to say there is apostasy FROM the Church is to state the obvious. To
examine point #2, apostasy OF the Church, he says in Chapter 2 paragraph
4:

"We
affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church gradually
drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was
broken and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine
direction and having authority to officiate in spiritual ordinances, ceased to
exist."

This
is a bold claim. Although he is mistaken in his statement that "succession of
the priesthood was broken." This is not true, for every Catholic Bishop who
ordains a priests can trace his ordination back to an Apostle! An Apostle
laid hands on a Bishop who laid hands on a Bishop and so on to this day. Any
Catholic Bishop can can traced this laying of hands back to an Apostle.That
is unparalleled in the modern world.

And
Mr
Talmage fails to make a case for #2. Apostasy OF the
Church. He gives zero evidence for this claim.

1.
The Holy Bible is silent on the apostasy OF the Church. It speaks often
of apostasy FROM the Church., but absolutely nothing on apostasy OF the Church.
Because it is never foretold and it never happened as per Christ's Words in Matt
16:16-19 to his Church. (" I will build my church
and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it")

2.
Mr Talmage cannot find a single Christian who professes this idea prior to the
Protestant separation. (Protestants professed it for obvious reasons, to justify
their new theologies). He is at odds with the whole of
Christianity as early as the 1st century who believed the Church., being the
Bride of
Christ. would never succumb to apostasy because Christ
told us it wouldn't.

3.
Nor can he reconcile this idea with the multitude of verses in the Holy Bible
which tell us that Christ would never let this happen. Matt 16:16-19 beholds
Christ's very Words promising that the "Gates of Hell" will never
prevail against his Church.

"And I say that thou art Peter, and
on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail
against it, I give you the keys to kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in Heaven and what ever you loosen on earth will be loosened
in Heaven." Matt 16:16-19

And
in Math 18:17 Christ himself admonishes his disciples to:

"hear
his Church." Why would Christ give his Church this authority and this
command, if he knew it would not always teach the truth in matter of faith or
morals?... he wouldn't .

In John 16
Christ tells us that he will send his Holy Spirit to guide the Church. in all
Truth. Christ said he would send the:

"the spirit of truth to guide you
into all the truth" (John 16:13)

Yes,
we hear much about Sinners becoming apostate in the early Church. But we hear
*nothing* about the Church as an institution becoming apostate until the
Protestant separation in the 16th century. And then this thought was reiterated
by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. The Protestant philosophers of the 16th
century are the author of this idea. Before it we hear not a word of the Church
that Christ started becoming Apostate. In fact all we hear is the opposite.

Surely
if the "True Mormon Believers" in the first few centuries saw their Church
become untrue to the teachings of the Apostles we would hear something of this.
Yet history, as with every other Mormon doctrine, is silent until the last few
hundred years. Just as history is silent on every distinctly Protestant
doctrine. Did Christ not tell his Church that he would be with it until the
end of the world? Since the Apostles would not live forever, this
promise is to his Church:

"Teach
them to observe all I have taught you and behold I am with you always until the
end of the world" Math 28:20.

He
didn't say:

"Teach
them to observe all I have taught you and behold I will be with you for just a
few decades. For my Bride, the Church. I personally commissioned and promised to
prevail against the "Gates of Hell" will become apostate very soon."

Yet
that is the teachings of the Mormon church. The teachings necessary to justify
and validate Joseph Smith's new theology, just as the Renaissance Protestants
embrace the same to justify their new theologies.

My
friend, history utterly *silent* on Mormon theology until the 1830s, yet replete
on Catholic theology to the "nth degree" in both Biblical and Extra-biblical
records as early as 70AD while many Apostles still lived. This lack of
Mormon evidence for their doctrines is compounded by the lack of evidence to
support Mormon "archeological claims" in early North America. Mormon
archeological suffers the same lack of evidence/historical support to cause the
Smithsonian to release a statement specifically denying any
substantiation to the Mormon claims of archaeology. The bottom line is, if
Christ's Church of the "apostolic age" was the prototype
of today's Mormon church, it must have had
all these beliefs and practices. But why is there zero evidence of them in the
from 33AD until 1830? Nothing, not one shred.

My friend,
Joseph Smith wrote:

"I was answered that I must join none of them
(Christian churches), for they were all wrong…their creeds were an abomination
in [God’s] sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (Joseph Smith—History
1:19). Yet he was never exposed to the fullness of the Catholic
Church, he speaks of the Protestant Churches. They are not Apostolic for
they all stem from the Renaissance era *at the earliest*. Just as Mormon
theology stems from Joseph Smith *at the earliest*. He is the source of
all of these ideas.

I just want to believe as the Apostles taught
Christ's infant Church, no matter where it leads me and no matter what it costs
me. I pray you feel the same way.

God Bless you,

Daniel

How could it be that Christ, who should
have known better, would promise that his Church would not be overcome, if he
knew full well a great apostasy would make short shrift of it in a
matter of decades? Was Christ lying? Obviously not. Was the Son of God
mistaken? No. Did his divinity fail him and cause him to miscalculate
things? No, again. Christ's divinity precluded such things. He was correct in
what he said and we as Christians should take his Words at face value.

"I will build my Church, and the powers of
death shall not prevail against it."

DISCLAIMER: This site is true to the Apostolic teachings of the Catholic Faith.
All efforts have been made to be true to orthodox Catholic theology as
delineated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.